Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI
e singularity, and as the world becomes more and more > crowded, > polluted, and competitive, and the have-nots increasingly have more power, > and as the media can provide increasingly seductive non-realities, and as > machine superintelligences increasingly decrease the relative value of > human > work and human thought, I fear that truly mind-altering drugs, if use too > widely, could increase, rather than decrease, the chance that humanity will > fare well --- as civilization, as we know it, is increasingly and more > rapidly distorted by the momentus changes that face us. > > But I am 60 years old, so maybe my viewpoint is out of date. > > Ed Porter > > > > > > --- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Instead of an AGI Textbook
Thanks Ben, this is a major help to those interested in AGI but who aren't yet "in the know", it's a bit hard to follow this listserv because there is no central place to search for terms I don't understand. On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > A lot of students email me asking me what to read to get up to speed on AGI. > > So I started a wiki page called "Instead of an AGI Textbook", > > > http://www.agiri.org/wiki/Instead_of_an_AGI_Textbook#Computational_Linguistics > > Unfortunately I did not yet find time to do much but outline a table > of contents there. > > So I'm hoping some of you can chip in and fill in some relevant > hyperlinks on the pages > I've created ;-) > > For those of you too lazy to click the above link, here is the > introductory note I put on the wiki page: > > > > > I've often lamented the fact that there is no advanced undergrad level > textbook for AGI, analogous to what Russell and Norvig is for Narrow > AI. > > Unfortunately, I don't have time to write such a textbook, and no one > else with the requisite knowledge and ability seems to have the time > and inclination either. > > So, instead of a textbook, I thought it would make sense to outline > here what the table of contents of such a textbook might look like, > and to fill in each section within each chapter in this TOC with a few > links to available online resources dealing with the topic of the > section. > > However, all I found time to do today (March 25, 2008) is make the > TOC. Maybe later I will fill in the links on each section's page, or > maybe by the time I get around it some other folks will have done it. > > While nowhere near as good as a textbook, I do think this can be a > valuable resource for those wanting to get up to speed on AGI concepts > and not knowing where to turn to get started. There are some available > AGI bibliographies, but a structured bibliography like this can > probably be more useful than an unstructured and heterogeneous one. > > Naturally my initial TOC represents some of my own biases, but I trust > that by having others help edit it, these biases will ultimately "come > out in the wash. > > Just to be clear: the idea here is not to present solely AGI material. > Rather the idea is to present material that I think students would do > well to know, if they want to work on AGI. This includes some AGI, > some narrow AI, some psychology, some neuroscience, some mathematics, > etc. > > *** > > > -- Ben > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they > will surely become worms." > -- Henry Miller > > --- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability
Since P is a subset of NP, clearly there are problems in NP that can be solved in polynomial time. NP problems must be solvable by a non-deterministic Turing machine (in simple terms a turing machine that executes multiple actions for each symbol but only chooses the symbols which lead to an accept state) in polynomial time and have their solutions verified by a deterministic turing machine in polynomial time. NP-complete problems are just problems for which no polynomial time deterministic turing machine algorithm is known. All that is required to prove P = NP is to prove that NP is a subset of P, which would require finding a polynomial time algorithm for solving any problem which is NP-complete. As for your problem involving SAT, it's not applicable to P-NP because they are classes of decisions problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem), which means problems that can be answered yes or no. And what you quoted should have been By the definition of NP-complete, any problem in NP must be reducible to any problem in NP-COMPLETE through a polynomial transformation. On Jan 18, 2008 1:47 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robin Gane-McCalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you give me an > example of any such problems (or a class of such problems)? By the > definition of NP-complete, any problem in NP must be reducible to any > problem in NP through a polynomial transformation. > - > It took me a while to figure this one out. I was using the term np as a > measure of the time (or time-data space) for computational processes and it > was not very precise as such. However, the definition of np is more > precise which is why your comment forced me to think about it. > > I was just trying to point out that even if a np-complete program was proven > to be solvable in p-time, there still would be problems that would take much > longer to solve. And some of them might look like np-complete problems to > the casual onlooker. > > For instance the SAT problem asks only if a certain logical formula has a > solution (that is, a True solution). At this time, in the worse case the > solution to this problem for n variables could take more than 2^n 'steps' to > complete, which is the same time it would take to try every possible > combination of logical (True or False) values in the formula. > > Let's say that a method (might as well say my method) produces a solution to > the SAT problem where even the worse cases can be determined in polynomial > time. > > Now let's say that the problem is not to determine whether or not there is a > solution or not, but to output every possible combination of values for a > logical formula and give the logical result as well. Since there are 2^n > combinations for a formula of n distinct logical variables, the output would > have to take more than 2^n 'steps'. So even supposing the np-complete > problem could be solved in polynomial time, there are still problems that > cannot be completed in polynomial time. > > Interestingly, if a polynomial time solution to the SAT problem was found, > it might be possible to output a couple of formulas that could define all of > the true and all of the false combinations without distinctly outputting > every one separately. However, the problem I defined above specifically > called for each possible combination to be output and therefore it cannot be > solved in polynomial time -by definition-. This is a trivial example, but > it shows that there are problems that cannot be solved in polynomial time, > and because this problem has something in common with the np-complete > problem of Satisfiability, some people might be confused by the problem. > Jim Bromer > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > ________ > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=87666358-4e313e
Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability
Can you give me an example of any such problems (or a class of such problems)? By the definition of NP-complete, any problem in NP must be reducible to any problem in NP through a polynomial transformation. On Jan 15, 2008 4:05 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right. What I meant was that there are problems (not complexity > class decision problems) that can be defined as taking NP time (like O^n > time) and which would not be reducible to P-time even if the NP-Complete > Problems are. So even if NP-Complete problems can be solved in P-Time, you > will still have some problems that cannot be solved in P-Time. > Jim Bromer > > > > Robin Gane-McCalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, SAT is an NP-complete problem > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem#NP-completeness) > so if it were calculatable in polynomial time, then P = NP. > > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > Search. > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=86285197-f1da0c
Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability
Actually, SAT is an NP-complete problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem#NP-completeness) so if it were calculatable in polynomial time, then P = NP. On Jan 15, 2008 1:49 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > In another message V. Nesov said: > Summarizing, you say that you might have proved P=NP, but don't give any > technical details, and there is God involved. It sounds really bad. > Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Ok, I would agree with you on that much. But I would also be wondering if > there was any possibility that it was true. > > At any rate, I should have a better idea if the idea will work or not by the > end of the year. > > But do you think that that SAT is not in p? Why not? (By the way, I did > not say that p=np. I think wikipedia gives examples of problems in np by > definition. So if SAT and the equivalent problems are in p that does not > mean that anything in np is in p.) > > Jim Bromer > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=86201040-9469e0
Re: [agi] BMI/BCI Growing Fast
Is that sarcasm or an official Communist Party platform? On Dec 14, 2007 3:48 PM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is China pushing its people into being smarter? Are they giving > > incentives beyond the US-style capitalist reasons for being smart? > > > > The incentive is that if you get smart enough, you may figure out a way > to get out of China ;-) > > Thus, they let the top .01% out, so as to keep the rest of the top 1% > motivated by the hope of getting out. > > Clever, huh? > > ben g > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=76325623-93607f
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
typically work with complex models in their heads. I've worked on > more than one software project where there were members of the team > that quite obviously never grokked the dynamic characteristics of a > system even after many months of intimate experience with it, whereas > others grokked it quickly. It had nothing to do with education or > experience or even desire to learn in many cases. Maybe it had to do with how similar their brains were to your brains? Perhaps if you thought of programming in terms other than multi-dimensional graphs you'd be able to explain it better to people who thought differently. > There is a lot of anecdotal and some literature evidence for this even > if you restrict yourself to the pool of pasty white male software > geeks. It is also probably why software has the unique feature that > half the really brilliant people working in it do not come from a > traditional CS background; it was not education per se that made them > great. The noted correlations with neurological structures is likely > not coincidental either. What correlations with neurological structures? > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=70423694-063cbe
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
> Only to the extent that mathematics is "man-defined", but then physics > et al are built entirely on mathematics so I'm not sure where you are > going with this. Computer science, and by extension AI, is not a > field coalesced out of an arbitrary set of brain farts. Computer Science and AI are defined by humans with the help of math to achieve a specific goal. There are almost always multiple ways of achieving the specific goal, this is where the bias comes in, people usually chose that which is the way which is easiest for them and their colleagues and don't give much thought to how easy it will be for outsiders to understand their programming language or AI concept. > The only substantive cultural bias in programming languages is the > pervasive use of English language keywords, how can you say that? Programming is essentially a way to solve problems and all cultures solve problems differently. > which hasn't seemed to > slow down pasty white males who do not speak English a whit. There > are only a handful of abstract concepts that underly all programming > languages, what are these concepts? And if all you need to do is understand a few concepts, then why do computer experts (people who presumably understand all of these concepts) have languages they prefer and argue about which languages are best? >and if you understand those abstract concepts then the > construction details of the programming language are largely > immaterial. How, precisely, would a female minority design a lambda > calculus programming language that would be radically different from > the myriad of such languages invented by pasty white male geeks? A female minority (or any other minority, anybody who is far away from the dominant geek culture that dominates CS) probably wouldn't ever get to the point of designing a programming language unless she joined the geek culture, and then she would be distanced from all the other people who don't understand programming, and thus not any more able to create a useful and easy to understand programming language than the geeky white males. > > Programming languages are derived from mathematical models, with some > application-oriented syntactic sugar to make common operations > simpler. They are precise and highly regular constructs whose only > "cultural bias" is that they disallow ambiguity as a basic feature > that follows from their mathematical derivation. The cultural bias lies in the choices that people make for the syntactic sugar and the mathematical models. > Being able to > manipulate complex multi-dimensional graphs in your head and wait, why do I have to manipulate complex multi-dimensional graphs in my head? I'm a programmer and I've never done that before. I'd be interested in knowing why you think this skill is important, but I can guarantee you many programmers never do it. > communicate without ambiguity are the only background skills required > to be a good software geek; the latter is learnable, Communication is necessary for programmers? I'd say useful, but not necessary. In my experience, it seems that human communication skills are inversely related to the ability to understand computers, but there are exceptions to that. >but I suspect the > former is largely innate and even most white males are relatively poor > at it. Why do you think it is innate? > > Cheers, > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=69736569-aa9169
